Posted on 08/22/2007 5:46:38 AM PDT by SJackson
An Anti-Defamation League (ADL) statement on Tuesday saying that Turkey's actions against Armenians between 1915-1918 "were tantamount to genocide" could negatively impact Turkey's close relationship with Israel, Turkish sources said Tuesday night.
"This might impact the relationship because the Jewish community and the lobby in Washington have supported Turkey in the past, and countered the Armenian lobby," the sources said. "This could have a negative impact."
ADL National Director Abe Foxman issued a statement Tuesday, saying that "in light of the heated controversy that has surrounded the Turkish-Armenian issue in recent weeks, and because of our concern for the unity of the Jewish community at a time of increased threats against the Jewish people, ADL has decided to revisit the tragedy that befell the Armenians.
"We have never negated, but have always described the painful events of 1915-1918 perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians as massacres and atrocities," the statement read. "On reflection, we have come to share the view of Henry Morgenthau, Sr. [the US ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during World War I], that the consequences of those actions were indeed tantamount to genocide. If the word genocide had existed then, they would have called it genocide."
Amid turmoil in his organization over the firing of the ADL regional director in Boston for saying publicly that the group's policy line on this issue was "morally indefensible," Foxman said in the statement that he had consulted with "my friend and mentor" Elie Wiesel and other respected historians, "who acknowledge this consensus. I hope that Turkey will understand that it is Turkey's friends who urge that nation to confront its past and work to reconcile with Armenians over this dark chapter in history."
The ADL and some other Jewish organizations have long been opposed to moves in Congress to adopt a resolution characterizing the events of that period as genocide. Foxman said that the ADL "firmly believes that a congressional resolution on such matters ... will not foster reconciliation between Turks and Armenians, and may put at risk the Turkish Jewish community and the important multilateral relationship between Turkey, Israel and the United States."
In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, Foxman said he did not think that this new position should impact relations with Turkey, since the ADL still believes that congressional action on this matter would be counterproductive.
Turkey's position has long been that judgment of the events from this period should not be made in parliaments around the world, but rather by historians.
Foxman told the Post that he and Wiesel were "ready to call for an international conference of scholars, both Turkish and Armenian," to deal with the issue.
Foxman, who has excellent contacts both in Ankara and Jerusalem, said he had not consulted with either capital city before issuing his statement.
Neither Jerusalem nor Ankara had any official comment on the matter, with the respective foreign ministries taken completely by surprise by the statement.
Turkish authorities have said plainly that one of the reasons for Turkey's close ties with Israel is the Jewish lobby in Washington and the help various Jewish organizations have given Ankara in fending off potentially detrimental legislation over the years.
The ADL's position on this matter has also been motivated in the past by a concern for the Jewish community in Turkey. Asked whether he was worried that this position would now lead to a backlash against the Jewish community in Turkey, Foxman said, "I hope not, because we have not changed our basic position" against congressional legislation on this matter.
------------------------------------------------
New York, NY, August 21, 2007 … Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued the following statement:
In light of the heated controversy that has surrounded the Turkish-Armenian issue in recent weeks, and because of our concern for the unity of the Jewish community at a time of increased threats against the Jewish people, ADL has decided to revisit the tragedy that befell the Armenians.
We have never negated but have always described the painful events of 1915-1918 perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians as massacres and atrocities. On reflection, we have come to share the view of Henry Morgenthau, Sr. that the consequences of those actions were indeed tantamount to genocide. If the word genocide had existed then, they would have called it genocide.
I have consulted with my friend and mentor Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel and other respected historians who acknowledge this consensus. I hope that Turkey will understand that it is Turkey's friends who urge that nation to confront its past and work to reconcile with Armenians over this dark chapter in history.
Having said that, we continue to firmly believe that a Congressional resolution on such matters is a counterproductive diversion and will not foster reconciliation between Turks and Armenians and may put at risk the Turkish Jewish community and the important multilateral relationship between Turkey, Israel and the United States.
The Turks are clowns. They can be useful clowns at times, but they are still clowns.
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
Along with Ambassador Morgenthau, Raphael Lemkin, who coined the word genocide
Ankara, like Pontius Pilate, has a problem with truth.
Geez, it was 90+ years ago. Get over it. They already have enough **** to worry about with the world today, they really need to dig this up as a reason to tussle? Newsflash: Every nation at times has treated it’s people and other peoples badly, persecuting them, killing them... the idea is to learn your lesson from it and not do it again.
i’d like to see the day when that jowl faced scumbag foxman adresses the communist genocides of cambodia,ussr,and china (in ascending order of severity)-just because you’re killing your own doesn’t make it less of a crime-the adl and the people who want a holocaust museum in every city are afraid of losing their pre eminent position on suffering-when someone is killed for no reason they’re just as dead regardless of who they are-acknowledging the enormity of communist mass murder doesn’t diminish the jewish experience-it merely puts it in perspective in a brutal world-the monument to victims of communism is pitifully small-why has there been such a vacuum of knowledge on the subject-is it taught to schoolkids?i will bet it isn’t.why?
“Geez, it was 90+ years ago. Get over it.”
90 plus years ago and NEVER RECOGNIZED.
It’s so easy for you to say “get over it.”
Having lost my ancestors in the genocide for no reason at all, and for the genocide to continue to be denied by Turkey and ignored by the world community, as though their lives meant absolutely nothing, we Armenians will “get over it” when it is FINALLY RECOGNIZED.
point taken
I did quite a bit of research on this subject years ago, and I’m with Bernard Lewis on this one; it was not a “genocide.”
Muhammad was a buffoon. A psycho killer buffoon
Now exactly where did Pilate have a truth problem?
For no reason at all? The Armenians staged a full scale uprising in the middle of a world war, a war the Turks were losing. When you use a war to leverage your rebellion, and fail, bad consequences follow (see Irish, Cromwell). There is no question that thousands of Armenians were killed, many of whom had nothing to do with the insurrection, but “no reason at all” is unsupportable.
He famously asked: "What is truth?", betraying his confusion with the concept.
Hmmmmm, was it not a rhetorical question?
Does that make mohammedans collectively an "Insane Clown Posse"?
If it were a sincere question, it would mean that he was unfamiliar with the concept of truth.
If it were, more likely, a rhetorical question, then it would imply that Pilate had contempt for the very notion of truth.
In either case, Pilate clearly had a problem with truth.
My, what a refined notion of justice you possess.
As a certain someone, whom no doubt you hold in high personal regard, once said: "Put some ice on it."
Oh, yes, I’ve heard that excuse by the Turkish government many times before. “The” Armenians staged a “full-scale uprising,” according to you, who bought the Turkish government’s spin.
My grandmother, who was a young child, her grandmother, who was an old lady, and other relatives, many children, many old, all civilians — all in the death march.
Oh, sure, they were a real threat.
Hitler saw the Jews as a “threat” too. I guess that must mean the Jews were at least partly responsible for the Holocaust too, according to your logic? After all, some of them staged riots too.
I disagree, Pilate's words still apply to this day, because there is NO consensus on what TRUTH actually is. This article proves that point, is there any question about the deaths of Armenians, and why is it still a point of contention?
I used to be a member of the John Birch Society and I can assure FReepers that it was always the Turks who were supported vis a vis the Greeks and Armenians. Greek Cypriots were accused of massacreing Turkish Cypriots, Archbishop Makarios III was called a "leftist," and one of their magazines ran a headline "Grecophile in Congress." As for the Armenians, they have long been "the Jews of chr*stendom."
All that being said, it is undeniable that Turkey has been a better friend to America and Israel than Greece (which is very anti-American and anti-Israel) and that both the Greek- and Armenian-American communities seem to have a hard-left orientation.
The Armenian Church is a purely ethnic church with little theology (despite its beautiful liturgy) and a great deal of nationalism and victimology (sort of the liturgical equivalent of Black Baptists).
I don't really have a dog in this fight, so I think I'll air pop some popcorn, take a seat, and watch the fun!
The Aztecs and Nazis had nuthin’ on dirty ol’ Mo’
Unfortunately for liberal Jews the Divine Election of Israel has been replaced by the uniqueness of Jewish suffering.
My default is to be against any Muslims that war on Christians, Jews, Hindus etc. That’s my rule of thumb and it’s never failed me
In my book no Muslim wars have ever been just, going all the way back to Muhammad, the first Muslim mass murderer
(1) The Armenians did not stage a "full-scale uprising" of any description.
What a ridiculous claim. Even the anti-Armenian Turkish propaganda at the time didn't make such preposterous assertions.
(2) The Turks were not losing the war in May of 1915 when they began deporting and slaughtering Armenians. In fact, the Turks began the genocide one month after their great victory over the British and French forces at Gallipoli. The genocide began at the high tide of Turkish military success.
When you use a war to leverage your rebellion, and fail, bad consequences follow (see Irish, Cromwell).
The Irish were loyal to their king, Charles I, who had been illegally deposed by the rebel Cromwell, an illegitimate dictator. This is perhaps the worst analogy in the world.
There is no question that thousands of Armenians were killed, many of whom had nothing to do with the insurrection, but “no reason at all” is unsupportable.
Thousands? Hundreds of thousands at the very least. And again, there was no insurrection - the official Turkish excuse was that the Turkish invasion of Armenia failed because the Armenians living in Turkey were not enthusiastic enough in supplying the troops who were killing their fellow Armenians and not enthusiastic enough in volunteering to kill their fellow Armenians.
They are changing policy now because of something that happened almost a century ago. That’s about like changing policy toward Spain because we just realized the Maine had be sunk. Or perhaps a better analogy - changing relations with Britian because of their treatment of the Boers.
Of course, the ADL is roughly the equivalent of CAIR.
If I had any talent at all in “rap”, I’d take that line and run with it ...
The idea that truth is based on consensus is fundamentally. The truth is still true even if no man believes it - it is an objective reality outside of perception and consent.
fundamentally flawed.
Not entirely successful perhaps, but Henry Morgenthau, the US Ambassador who resigned due to American inaction, and Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term and was instrumental in the passage of the Genocide Treaty would disagre.
Perhaps you'd like to expand on your conclusion, and enlighten the rest of us.
Truth cannot be derived from a consensus.
PAR35: They are changing policy now because of something that happened almost a century ago. Of course, the ADL is roughly the equivalent of CAIR.
IMO it's not something they should have a policy on, but it's more of a clarification than a change, due to their hesitancy to support a Congressional resolution condemning Turkey.
Since the ADL doesn't support terrorist groups, imo the equivalency with CAIR is false.
Then you should share with the thread, since you are the only researcher who believes that the Armenians of Turkey waged a "full-scale insurrection" against their government during World War I.
and I’m with Bernard Lewis on this one; it was not a “genocide.”
Bernard Lewis agrees that 1.5 million Armenians were murdered by their government solely for the crime of being Armenian.
What he says is that the Turkish government did not set out in the beginning to kill all the Armenians in Turkey in the same way that the Nazis set out to kill all Jews in Germany - the results were similar, but the Turks were originally only planning to murder as many Armenians as necessary to compel obedience from the remainder.
In my mind, that is a distinction without a difference: it was a government coordinated slaughter of more than a million people conducted solely on the basis of heritage.
Entirely responsible, it was just retribution for their having started WWI and WWII, among other things, per Hitler's logic.
It's worth noting the murder isn't necessary to qualify as genocide, rather the destruction, in it's entirety or in part, of a cultural/religious/racial group. As a crime in the post war period, intent would be a factor.
Prior to coining the term genocide, Lemkin referred to it as Acts of Barbarity, and recognized an additional crime against humanity, never embraced by treaty, Acts of Vandalism, as in shelling Budda and burning Churches and Synagogues. Translation's of some of his early works here
I. GENOCIDE - A NEW TERM AND NEW CONCEPTION FOR DESTRUCTION OF NATIONS
New conceptions require new terms. By "genocide" we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. This new word, coined by the author to denote an old practice in its modern development, is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), thus corresponding in its formation to such words as tyrannicide, homocide, infanticide, etc.(1) Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.
I will not disagree. Truth is truth, and there have been many throughout the ages that attempted to harness the power of what is truth. Again to me Pilate asked a rhetorical question, the majority certainly had already made up their minds what truth was, so hence that question... What is truth? "Truth" is said to set one free, well free from what? Truth was also likened to taste like honey but made the belly bitter.
So why is there still contention about what happened in Armenia? Is there no truth about what literally took place?
It was a Muslim on Christian genocide plain and simple.
They didn’t support Irgun or the Stern gang?
I agree, so who ultimately will decide how to characterize the intent and motivation of what took place in Armenia? That sure seems to be what all this fuss is about presenting a truth... what the intent was and the motivation... fitting an already prescribed criteria.
There is contention because
(1) the Turkish government's policy is to deny the historical facts of the Armenian genocide, and because
(2) other governments find it expedient as a matter of diplomatic policy to adopt the Turkish government's view in order to ingratiate themselves to a country that is 50 times wealthier and 20 times as populous as Armenia.
“Get over it.”
Oh stop it!
I haven't a clue, though I don't see the connection to genocide.
I assume you're attempting to establish a moral equivalency between Israel and Islamic terror. You won't convince me, but I acknowledge there's all sort's of folk who'll agree with you.
So what does Foxman have in this debate? Isn't he an American citizen, what difference does it make to him and his organization what the Turkish government does or does not accept? I am not buying that he has an authentic concern for to gain reparations for the survivors of those Armenians massacred.
It has nothing to do with reparations, though of late Armenians have been successful in a few cases of reclaiming life insurance policies and financial assets.
See the link in post 33. The ADL has been criticized for not supporting Congressional action condemning Turkey. They're clarifying their position because of that. IMO this (the resolution) is a political question they shouldn't be involved with, but they stick their nose into things like gun control, gay marriage and abortion, none of which relate to their mandate, so I suppose it's reasonable to expect them to take a position on this legislation.
If the Turkish government apologised, do you really believe there would be true remorse with it, or are they saying it to please other parties? When a teacher makes a bully apologise, do you really think he's sorry, or just saying it to get teacher off his back, and go after his prey again after school. (Admittedly, this is a simple example of a much more complex problem, but the principle remains the same). The Armenians would be fooling themselves to think that a Turkish recognition of genocide would improve regional stability.... it would make the Turks less friendly (loss of face, so to speak) and they'd be just aching for a new opportunity to stick it to the Armenians.
It's a lose-lose battle, and the real reason it's been brought up is to put the brakes on any forward motion until a more superior opportunity comes up.
Given the recent leftward movement of our 'high' court, who publicly have demonstrated they consider world law as foundation for their supreme decisions, a Congressional resolution would give that movement 'gravitas'.
Now personally I am not too pleased with the Turkish government stonewalling and roadblocking US into Iraq, when we finally decided that UN resolutions actually did have meaning. So that bit of clarity in the event that it appears I am taking a 'Turkish government' side on this debate.
Foxman entering himself and his organization into this debate for me only muddies the waters, he has a history of making outrageous accusations and it sure was not about presenting "TRUTH"!
BINGO. This is tiresome. What relevance is this to anything? Should we not deal with Angela Merckle and the German Government due to the Holocaust?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.